Talk:Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 30, 2008, November 30, 2009, November 30, 2010, and November 30, 2013.|
Printz v. United States ruling
I may be mistaken in my interpretations of the law, but I believe the 1997 Printz v. United States case ruled that this portion of the Brady Act was unconstitutional, and was altered: "The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer..."
The Court ruled that requiring local officials to run background checks was unconstitutional, but upheld the rest of the Act, and even stated States or municipalities were constitutionally allowed to pass laws requiring it. Terrance the James (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Federal Assault Weapons Act
The last sentence originally read "The United States House of Representatives failed to renew the act in 2004." After googling, I determined this was not what the author of this article mistakingly implies the "act" in this sentence as the Brady Act. I changed the sentence using the presumable source at bradycampaign.org under FAQ to "The United States House of Representatives failed to renew the Federal Assault Weapons Act in 2004." In my opinion, if the Federal Assault Weapons Act is going to be referenced then just a slight bit of transition needs to be added. I wasn't bold enough to do it myself. The information is at the website I gave however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All4FreeEducation (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The numbers range from 69,000 to "hundreds of thousands" of denied purchases in the first year the bill was in effect. Each of which involves falsification of information on the 4473 (the federal form required to purchase a firearm). Each of these rejections (minus the false positive rejections, on which no statistics are gathered) comes with what ammounts to a signed confession that the convicted felon or other prohibited person was attempting to purchase a handgun. The number of convictions? In 1998 there was one. Assuming the NRA's guess that 75% of the denials were the result of false positives, and assuming anyone who is rejected doesn't try to acquire a gun through other means (after all, the bill's supporters assume that in the statistics they quote), that means tens to hundreds of thousands of people denied their Second Amendment rights, all for putting 1 person in jail... scot 19:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Edits in re: the Provisions section The provisions section contains some material not related to what is the in Brady Act, and the information is not cited. I am going to clean it up a bit and add references. --PFS (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the line about opponents arguing that fed. has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce. This was not used as an argument by opponents to change any part of the act. The act was written to comply with that part of the U.S. Constitution from the start. There was no argument about the bill covering private sales because the bill could never be written to do that in the first place.L0b0t 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm not good at this but I think some one who is good should include a citation or some clarification to the last paragraph's intriguing (to me) reference to the Supreme Court finding the Act unconstitutional. Here is a neutral 3rd party reference if that's acceptable to you: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html . Appears from a cursory reading that a limited portion of the Act, an interim measure way back at the beginning, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but severable from the rest of the Act. In any event, the last paragraph is unclear about this point of constitutionality and I recommend some clarification. Sorry for my lack of experience editing this serious website, this is my effort at contribution to the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Yaf, I believe I may have phrased it poorly. What I meant was that if you go into Bob's gun store and buy a firearm, you fill out your paperwork and have your NICS check. The next time you go into that particular gun store to purchase a firearm you fill out your paperwork and get your firearm without the NICS check because the store has an established relationship with you as a valid purchaser. Cheers. L0b0t 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nope. They still have to run a new set of paperwork through the call-in number each and every time; this means they also charge the $5 call-in fee (or whatever the fee is in the state in which the buyer lives) each and every time the same person buys a firearm. A misdemeanor violence charge (not even a conviction) is enough to prevent a potential buyer from remaining eligible; the store would have no way of knowing a buyer had thrown a cereal bowl at a spouse that morning, say, which means they had become newly-ineligible per the Lautenberg Amendment. For that matter, neither does the call-in NICS know about the cereal bowl either, yet, but running the paperwork anew establishes the illegality of the purchase for a subsequent prosecution. Yaf 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"The Act initially required purchasers to wait up to five days for a background check to occur before purchasing a handgun from a federal firearms license." I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but that just doesn't sound right. Shouldn't it be "licensed dealer" (FFL Type 1) or something? Skillet5 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A minor case of non-NPOV?
Under the section Sarah Brady and the Brady Law, second paragraph:
- In 2000 Sarah Brady purchased a .30-06 Springfield rifle in Delaware for her son. Second amendment rights groups claimed that this action was a straw purchase, intended to avoid the NICS.
This section could be improved by the addition of more information about who Jim Brady was and what role they played in the Brady law. I know there is controversy about how to handle descriptions of living people. I am going to rely on the "bio" information listed on the Brady Campaign website. --PFS (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried about the amount of bias in some of the sources listed here. You can see it just by looking at the titles. "A Good Fight." "Control backer got son rifle" "Mother bought son sniper rifle". It looks like they're getting info from control advocates only. Swatrecon_
The link "The text of the Brady Bill" was incorrect. It linked to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, not to the 1993 Brady Act. I corrected it.
The paragraph, "In January 1994, the National Rifle Association declared...." contains a citation, but there is no unbiased link supporting this claim. In fact the earliest reference to this article which I can find is from late 2009 and it appears to be this website (28 Oct 2009). Before that it seems this article did not exist. Removing this unless someone can produce a verifiable copy of the article "Line Up and Shut Up. Face Forward. Stay in Line. Last Name First," (American Rifleman 32, January 1994).